Lecavalier took his shot, but it ended up hitting both posts and the crossbar. A review determined that it wasn’t a goal, but it had to have been a tough call, as you can see below:

“Honestly, I wasn’t sure,” Lecavalier told CSN Philly when the subject of whether or not his shot should have counted came up. “I thought it hit the back of the crossbar, like the back of the net under the bar … I couldn’t believe it, I don’t think I’ve ever seen three posts.”

It proved to be costly for the Flyers, who went on to lose 3-2. Meanwhile, Los Angeles has won three straight and has a comfortable hold on the third seed in the Pacific Division.

Well, the bottom line is that he ‘didn’t’ tie the game and we Kings went on to victory yet again ! Nonetheless, you do have to ask yourself … was that some fluke of physics ? … or is it possible that a ‘higher’ power is now guiding our enterprise during this crucial stage of the season ? Friends, I’m not a religious man as such, however I do sincerely believe that in addition to skill and conviction, ours is a team now being driven by ‘divine’ providence. Yes sir ! … just like we were two years ago ! And everyone from here to Katmandu sure knows what happens when the good Lord puts his money down on the LA Kings eh ?

GO KINGS GO !!! … TODAY, TOMORROW AND FOREVER !!!!!!!

PS Ovechkin: you’re going to help us tonight, whether you like it or not !!!

“A review determined that it wasn’t a goal, but it had to have been a tough call.”

Oh, please! While it was an “almost” goal, it wasn’t a close replay call. A GLANCE at the replay shows that it never appears to do more than hit iron. I happened to see the Flyers postgame show where they were trying to concoct some way that was a goal. Sorry. It wasn’t. The one with the phantom crosscheck WAS a goal, though. The complaints about the officiating were hilarious, given how much the home team benefitted from the calls most of the night.

All that said, the Philly guys did play a hell of a good ten-minute game in the third.

The L.A. bench was not quiet about the phantom cross-check. Sutter was giving it to the refs, but as a Kings fan there have been a number of bad calls this season by refs. I don’t have a problem with it myself as I have been watching hockey over 45 years and see refs screw up all the time; it’s all part of the game. It was a horrible call but good teams like L.A. must take them in stride and you move on and play your game.

From the L.A. perspective, Jim Fox, who is the analyst for Kings game, pointed out two critical errors by the younger referee last night, and he usually gives the refs the benefit of the calls. Last night, clearly, Philly was the beneficiary of two horrible calls but couldn’t do anything with them.

IDK The puck appears to change direction when it hits the back of the crossbar/netting. The viewing angle is a little bit from the front so the puck looks as if it doesn`t cross entirely past the crossbar. I would like to see a directly overhead view and see if we see any puck.

As a flyers fan I agree with the no goal call. It wasn’t enough video review to turn the call. It sucks but it happens. We have had some calls go our way and some not.
At the end of the day, had the flyers shown up for the first two periods, this almost goal wouldn’t have had to be such a big deal. Stick to the plan and play play hard again the next game.

That really isn’t a tough call, or a bad call… If a post to post shot isn’t a goal, or a crossbar – post isn’t a goal, why would a post-crossbar-post be a goal. One CRAZY shot though. I’d give him 1/2 a point.

i was wondering the same. that’s a bit much. makes it look like a curving puck when it hits that top post.

it’s funny though, the other angle makes it look like there’s a water bottle or something on the top of the net that the puck bumps into and stays out, but the top view shows that there isn’t. that’s what I thought happened at first. so many illusions. crazy no goal.

can somebody find me a high-quality replay of that disallowed kings goal? I have a sneaking suspicion that Carter broke his stick over Timonen’s back on that play, but Center Ice isn’t in HD in my area so I couldn’t really see it too well.

this engineer understands physics, and he says you’re wrong. that’s entirely possible. want me to draft it out in AutoCAD for you?

short explanation, if the object is moving straight, and it hits 3 points, create an imaginary plane with those points, and that’s the plane the puck was on the whole time. unless one of them is inside the goal (they aren’t, the pipes are outside the goal), no point of that plane is inside the goal.